R112

Since I actually examined the item, and all you are doing is looking at a not very good scan of same, I will react accordingly.

All that anyone is asking for, is for the occasional mistake to be acknowledged and accepted.

No further discussion is necessary.

My wife is the first to admit that I am not perfect.

Unfortunately, repeatedly.

Jim

Bart, I disagree with the conclusion that the stamps in question are R112c (perf. 8). They are clearly sewing machine perfs, which R112c is NOT. The stamps are R112b, but the cert has added a designation for the perforation gauge of the vertical perfs, which is unusual.

I still maintain that the correct conclusion is that the block is R112b, but with a differing gauge horizontally vs. vertically.

It's a very unusual block.

Arrgh!

Why does everyone still call these varieties "sewing machine" perforations?

Nobody ever ran imperf. sheets through a f'ing sewing machine.

They're pin-perforated!

Grumpy Jim

Because right or wrong, that's how they are listed in Scott. If you want to lobby Amos Media for a change in terminology, knock yourself out. I think it will be a tough sell, however, as it is a descriptive term that is used for stamps across many countries.

I love how everyone thinks that they can "clearly" see something different about an item from a weak scan when that item was looked at in person by several people (each with 45-55 years of revenue experience who have seen numerous examples of both perf 8 and sewing machine perfs). Each of those people came to the same conclusion, that it was and is a perf 8.

I was the high bidder on the lot. I'll post a better pic when I get it.

Bart, what do I need to do to get the certificate corrected?

Revhound,

Just curious, did you buy the block based on the seller's ebay description and the "R112b" on the certificate as being sewing machine perforated, or based on the "perf. 8" that is on the certificate?

Jim

Easiest to call the PF and explain the problem; they will tell you how to proceed.

http://www.philatelicfoundation.org/

No I saw the problem immediately and knew I was getting a great lot.

Ha....that's pure BS. LOL

I thought I was buying a sewing machine perf. strip of 4. This is definitely better, and a pleasant surprise. I have been trying to find a perf. 8 for awhile now. I already have a couple of single R112b, but the perf 8 has been elusive. And it just falls in my lap on accident. Weird how things work out.

MUCH better.

I'm pretty sure that Eric perceived it as sewing machine perfs and not Perf. 8. Otherwise his bid would have been considerably higher, as would have been mine. It doesn't match the characteristics of any other perf. 8 examples, expertized or otherwise.

It does if you look at it in person. The top row of perfs is obvious, the internal vertical perfs look as they should before separation, relatively small holes with large spacing. The bottom row of perfs look very much like the bottom row of the single that was posted. If you are going to compare a much smaller scan of a strip of four with a larger scan of a single, of course they won't look the same.

Remember, we are dealing with a relatively rough amateur perforation here, not a nice clean Bureau issue.